alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mitchell ALFORD, Appellant, v. J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Kentucky Workmen’s Compensation Board, etc., and The Commissioner of Industrial Relations, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 23, 1958.

Daniel Boone Smith, Smith & Shehan, J. L. Davis, Harlan, for appellant.

James Sampson, William A. Rice, Harlan, Ben L. Kessinger, Harbison, Kessinger, Lisle & Bush, Lexington, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Judge.

Mitchell Alford, the appellant, sought an award of workmen’s compensation for total permanent disability claimed to have resulted from a back injury sustained in 1954 while in the employ of J. A. Jones Construction Company, an appellee. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found as a fact that Alford had not sustained a permanent disability as a result of the *868alleged injury, and entered an order denying compensation (except for a short period of temporary disability). On appeal to the circuit court the order of the Board was upheld. Alford has appealed from that judgment sustaining the Board.

Because a “subsequent injury” question was involved, the Board appointed a medical panel of two doctors, under KRS 342.121. The sole contention of the appellant is that one of the doctors was not “disinterested,” as required to be by the statute, and therefore the case should he remanded to the Board with directions to appoint a new panel and to rehear the case.

The claim that one of the doctors was not disinterested arises from the fact that when the claim was first presented, and before the panel was appointed, the employer’s insurance carrier . had asked the doctor to make a physical examination of the claimant, on the employer’s behalf. Arrangements were made for an appointment, but the claimant did not appear. He telephoned the doctor and said he would not submit to a myelogram examination unless his own doctor could be present. The doctor never saw the claimant at that time, and did not receive any remuneration from the employer or the insurance carrier.

We think it is exceedingly doubtful whether .the foregoing circumstances were such as to prevent the doctor from being considered disinterested. However, regardless of this, after the question was raised before the Board as to the doctor’s alleged disqualification, the Board appointed another doctor to examine the claimant. • Furthermore, the Board did not purport to accept the findings' of the panel as conclusive, but based its decision on a weighing of all of the medical testimony in the case, including depositions of the members of the medical panel which were taken at the instance of the employer. A serious question also ‘exists as to whether the claimant made a timely objection to the panel.

Considering all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant has no just cause to complain that the proceedings before the Board were not fair and proper.

The appellant has filed a motion for an appeal. However, the amount involved obviously is more than $2,500, so we are treating the motion as surplusage.

The judgment is affirmed.
Order entered May 28, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00613-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-51726-2011

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s May 27, 2015 unopposed motion to extend time to file response 

brief to appellee/cross-appellant’s brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 11, 

2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIZABETH ANN PEREZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-15187

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01887-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013 

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Elizabeth Perez appeals the district court’s decision affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We reverse and remand.

FILED

DEC 09 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 
Perez argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider the

mental health assessment conducted by her treating physician, Dr. Rooney. We

agree. 

Based on the record before us, it is unclear whether the ALJ adequately

considered Dr. Rooney’s opinion about the claimant’s mental limitations. 

Although the ALJ discussed and gave reasons for rejecting Dr. Rooney’s physical

residual functional capacity assessment, he did not specifically discuss or reject the

doctor’s separate assessment of the claimant’s mental ability to do work. The ALJ

failed to state whether he considered Dr. Rooney a treating physician in evaluating

the claimant’s mental limitations and essentially rejected a key element of Dr.

Rooney’s opinion without giving any reasons for doing so. See Lingenfelter v.

Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and remand for

further proceedings at which the ALJ should consider Dr. Rooney’s opinion

regarding plaintiff’s depression and afford it the weight the ALJ deems

appropriate. We decline to address the remaining issues raised by Perez.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

2
* Under 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31066 Summary Calendar

RODNEY MAYEUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1304-R

- - - - - - - - - - July 17, 1998 Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Rodney Mayeux his complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm. The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell , 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). Both the FTCA and the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA) waive sovereign immunity. The FTCA waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from tort liability and providesNo. 97-31066 -2- a remedy against the United States for personal injury resulting from the negligence of its agents or employees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The FTCA does not apply to “[a]ny claim for which a remedy is provided by [the Public Vessels Act or the SAA], relating to claims or suits in admiralty against the United
States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(d). The FTCA and the SAA are mutually exclusive. Mayeux’s assertion of jurisdiction under the FTCA is correct only if his claim is not covered by the SAA. See McCormick v. United States , 680 F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir. 1982). The SAA waives sovereign immunity of the United States not only in cases involving government vessels, property, or cargo, but also in cases in which a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained if a private person or property were involved. 46 U.S.C. app § 742; see McCormick , 680 F.2d at 349. The present case, in which the alleged negligence of a government employee caused injury in the navigable waters of the Harvey Canal, is a case covered by the SAA. See McCormick , 680 F.2d at 349. See also De Bardeleben Marine Corp. v. United States , 451 F.2d 140, 145 (5th Cir. 1971)(applying the SAA to a claim for negligent drafting of maritime survey charts); Sheridan Trans. Co. v. United States , 897 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 1990)(applying the SAA to a claim for failure to give notice of submerged wreck). Mayeux’s argument has no merit. Suits filed under the SAA must be filed within two years of the time when the cause of action arises. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 745; see McMahon v. United States , 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951). Mayeux’s suit was filed on April 15, 1996, almost six monthsNo. 97-31066 -3- after the limitations period expired. Mayeux argues that his suit is not time-barred because of the doctrine of equitable tolling. We find that Mayeux did not allege any facts justifying the tolling of the statute of limitations. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

5, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00050-CR

EX PARTE JOSHUA BAINES, Appellant

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1449547

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in this case, signed by 

appellant, has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this 

court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court 

to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP



Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter ended June 30, 2005



The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /S/ NANCY A. GRAY                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|                     |  |  |  | Nancy A. Gray, Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 AT ROAD, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of At Road, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Carol Rice-Murphy, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. May 10, 2004 /s/ Carol Rice-Murphy Carol Rice-Murphy
Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
21.  Capital City Bank Group, Inc. Subsidiaries, as of December 31,
2007.





Direct Subsidiaries:


Capital
City Bank


CCBG
Capital Trust I (Delaware)


CCBG
Capital Trust II (Delaware)





Indirect
Subsidiaries:


Capital
City Banc Investments, Inc. (Florida)


Capital
City Services Company (Florida)


Capital
City Trust Company (Florida)


First
Insurance Agency of Grady County, Inc. (Georgia)


FNB
Financial Services, Inc. (Georgia)


Southern
Oaks, Inc. (Delaware)


Capital
City Mortgage Company (Florida) - Inactive
EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the  quarterly  report of OnScreen  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I hereby certify
solely for the purpose of complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The quarterly  report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13
      (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information  contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company


ONSCREEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By: /s/ John"JT" Thatch                Dated this 4th day of May 2005
  --------------------------------
  John "JT" Thatch
  CEO/President/Director



                                       19
#### Kearby Jerome BEALE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas (three cases).

Nos. 28342-28344.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1956.

Charles E. Tobin, Dallas, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful possession of narcotic drug ;• the punishment, 3 years.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form executed by the appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is. granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Syms Corp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 1, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marcy Syms, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Marcy SymsMarcy SymsChief Executive OfficerSyms CorpApril 25, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
DENIED and Opinion Filed April 9, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00188-CV 

IN RE RENE KING, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-2071454 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Breedlove 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is relator’s February 21, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus 

wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss some or all of the 

proceedings in Cause No. F-2071454. 

Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner, No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 

6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Upon review of relator’s petition, relator fails to meet some of the requirements of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See 

In re Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 
 –2– 

July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–

(d), 52.3(f)–(k), 52.7(a). 

For example, it is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record 

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see 

also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn 

copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter 

complained of”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or 

sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and 

that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Although relator filed two documents 

with this petition, neither is a sworn or certified copy as required by the rules. 

Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that 

every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix 

or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated 

record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re 

Skinner, No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 

28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Further, relator’s petition lacks a statement of facts supported by citations to 

competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a 

“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to 

authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition 

is also missing the following: a list identifying the parties and counsel, a table of 
 –3– 

contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, and a statement of the issues 

presented. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f). 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

240188F.P05 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofTell-A-Tale Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Anthony N. DeMint                                    

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

August 3, 2006
TS

– 11KK4D , Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, DSC Trace

Reacted
#### Robert Lee YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29017.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 8, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is assault with intent to rape; the punishment, 2 years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 340/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell'Unione europea | C 340 |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 59° anno16 settembre 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell'Unione europea

C 340

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

59° anno16 settembre 2016

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informazioni |
| | INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA |
| | Parlamento EuropeoConsiglio |
| 2016/C 340/01 | Dichiarazione della Commissione relativa al regolamento (UE) 2016/1627 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 14 settembre 2016, concernente un piano pluriennale di ricostituzione del tonno rosso nell'Atlantico orientale e nel Mediterraneo e recante abrogazione del regolamento (CE) n. 302/2009 del Consiglio | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

IV   Informazioni

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

Parlamento EuropeoConsiglio

2016/C 340/01

Dichiarazione della Commissione relativa al regolamento (UE) 2016/1627 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 14 settembre 2016, concernente un piano pluriennale di ricostituzione del tonno rosso nell'Atlantico orientale e nel Mediterraneo e recante abrogazione del regolamento (CE) n. 302/2009 del Consiglio

1

---

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

IV Informazioni

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

Parlamento Europeo Consiglio

| 16.9.2016 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2016

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea

C 340/1

---

Dichiarazione della Commissione relativa al regolamento (UE) 2016/1627 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 14 settembre 2016, concernente un piano pluriennale di ricostituzione del tonno rosso nell'Atlantico orientale e nel Mediterraneo e recante abrogazione del regolamento (CE) n. 302/2009 del Consiglio (1)

(2016/C 340/01)

La Commissione esprime preoccupazione per il fatto che i poteri limitati ad essa delegati dai colegislatori possano ostacolare la tempestiva attuazione nel diritto dell'UE delle misure adottate in futuro dall'ICCAT volte a rivedere o aggiornare il regime di controllo di tale organizzazione.

La Commissione dichiara pertanto di ritenere che il regolamento in oggetto non rechi pregiudizio alle posizioni future dell'istituzione per quanto riguarda il ricorso agli articoli 290 e 291 del TFUE per il recepimento delle misure dell'organizzazione regionale di gestione della pesca.

La Commissione si riserva pertanto il diritto di proporre modifiche al regolamento volte ad accrescere il numero delle misure che dovrebbero essere adottate mediante atti delegati o di esecuzione qualora il recepimento tramite la procedura legislativa ordinaria provochi ritardi che comprometterebbero la capacità dell'UE di rispettare i suoi obblighi internazionali.

---

(1)  GU L 252 del 16.9.2016, pag. 1.

---